Florida Boy Can Sue To Cut Ties to Parents

In a ruling that could break new legal ground, a Florida judge ruled
last month that an 11-year-old boy has the right to seek to end his
relationship with his parents.

The boy, identified as Gregory K., alleges in a lawsuit filed in
April that his parents have abused, neglected, and abandoned him, and
charges that the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services had "failed and refused to take appropriate action'' on his
behalf.

Documents filed in the case show that the boy has been bounced
between homes and institutions for several years and had been in the
foster-care system for 31 of the past 33 months.

Gregory K. hopes to cut all ties with his parents so he can be
adopted by the foster family with whom he has lived for the past nine
months.

Although the issue of the child's placement has yet to be settled,
State Circuit Judge Thomas S. Kirk, in his capacity as a juvenile
judge, ruled July 10 that the Florida constitution grants the boy the
same right as an adult to seek protection of his interests.

"What was won was merely the right of a child to be heard in
court,'' said Jeanne Lenzer, the chairman of the National Child Rights
Alliance, an advocacy group for abused and neglected children. "We
think this is a very important step.''

Jerri A. Blair, the boy's lawyer, called the decision a "big
breakthrough'' because it ensures that there is a "protective device to
help kids from falling through the cracks'' of the child-welfare
system.

"This is the first time anybody has recognized that a child should
know what abuse is and be able to come and tell the court,'' she
added.

A Pandora's Box?

In most cases involving minors, a legal guardian is supposed to
represent a child's best interests.

Although the boy's father has relinquished all parental rights and
supports the adoption, his mother, identified as Rachel K., is
contesting the action. She and the state agency argue that, as a minor,
Gregory K. has no standing to sue his parents.

They also say the ruling may prompt a flood of suits by children
against their parents.

"It opens up a Pandora's box,'' said Harry H. Morall, one of the
lawyers representing Rachel K.

"At a time when we're trying to keep families united, coherent, and
bonded,'' he added, "I think this is going to put another nail in the
coffin of the American family.''

Ms. Blair argued, however, that the goal of reunifying families
"gets taken to extremes'' in situations of severe neglect or abuse, or
"when there isn't any family relationship to reunify.''

She added that the principles behind the ruling could also help
"strengthen parents' right to get a child a back'' in some cases.

Calling the decision "the right thing to do legally and morally,''
the boy's foster father, identified as George R., said its impact would
be limited because most children cannot afford the legal costs. He also
argued that lawyers and courts would not back "frivolous''
lawsuits.

Chris Hansen, associate director of the children's-rights project of
the American Civil Liberties Union, said he did not think the ruling
would overextend the courts' control over parental decisions.

"I don't think the court will start deciding [children's]
bedtimes,'' he said. But he predicted that the case would "illustrate
broader problems within the [child-welfare] system,'' such as
inadequately trained workers, unwieldy caseloads, and "poor
decisionmaking.''

Mr. Morall argued, however, that the courts are not the right venue
to solve those problems.

"The system we have has not been exhausted,'' he said. "Let's
correct that.''

Hearings on the question of the boy's custody are scheduled for next
month.

Vol. 11, Issue 40, Page 26

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.